I like it.
I think most people on this site (which a couple notable exceptions) are pretty tolerant, and even interested, in differing uses of photographic technology. But I've never quite understood the excitement, reflected by Mike Reichmann, most prominently, for the DSLR-form convergence cameras that both shoot stills and video. It seems to me that this forum's primary appeal is to artists, largely still photographers, but there may be a few videographers sneaking into the group, because the two forms have an undeniable relationship. But the thing is, if you're going to make good high-quality videos, it seems to me that you should work with good high-quality equipment made specifically for video -- the requirements are quite different, as Mark points out.
Now, if you're an amateur who has no real interest in making an effort toward serious art, then it seems that a convergence camera may have some utility -- it's like those old 8mm cameras that our parents used to shoot movies of us, splashing in inflatable pools in the backyard. The films won't be very good, but they might have a certain snapshot-like utility. They may also be fine for such things as single-point-of-view instructional videos, but even those become kind of boring after a few minutes of viewing, perhaps because we're so used to professionally made videos with lots of both conceptual and technical quality.
But sticking the two forms together, as Mark points, out, creates a lot of complication in the still cameras we're using. I shoot Panasonic Lumix GX7s (in addition to a D800e) and I'm told that the video that comes out of them is of pretty good quality. But the ergonomics are not good, not if you want to move the camera while holding it steady on the scene you're shooting. Shooting video is seriously different than shooting one still at 1/1000. Further, adding all the video stuff to a still camera simply adds more things that can go wrong with the camera, which I REALLY don't need.